BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune18Jaipur16Delhi12Mumbai12Indore8Ahmedabad5Lucknow4Kolkata3Surat3Bangalore3Amritsar2Dehradun1Patna1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 1948Section 2015Section 271E4Section 201(1)4Section 269S3Section 269T3Section 271D2Section 1472Penalty2Reassessment

T.R. AMAR,TUMAKURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TUMAKURU RANGE,, TUMAKURU

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1882/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 269TSection 271E

Reassessment proceedings LdAr appeared from time to time and submitted the details and financial Statements. On verification the Assessing Officer, found errors and omissions in the statements and the assessee could not explain or reconciled the same, therefore additional income of Rs7,75,000/- was offered by the assessee and Assessed the total income of Rs.11,40,440 and passed

2

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it is a case where a claim has been made in an open and bonafide manner and hence in terms of provisions of section 273B of the Act, which specifically exclude the rigors of provisions of section 271D of the Act, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable in the present case

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

269T of the Act also supports the proposition that the amount of deposit is repayable on demand. The definition reads as follows: “"loan or deposit" means any loan or deposit of money which is repayable after notice or repayable after a period and, in the case of a person other than a company, includes loan or deposit of any nature